Abstract
Purpose
The choice of a sustainable packaging alternative is a key issue for the improvement of the environmental performances of a product, both from a production perspective and end-of-life management. The present study is focused on the life cycle assessment (LCA) of two packaging alternatives of a poultry product, in particular a polystyrene-based tray and an aluminum bowl (70 wt% primary and 30 wt% secondary aluminum) were considered.
Methods
The LCA was performed according to ISO 14040-44 and following a “from-cradle-to-grave” perspective. The following stages were considered: production, use phase (i.e., cooking), and end-of-life. Different end-of-life scenarios were hypothesized. Greenhouse Gas Protocol, Cumulative Energy Demand, and ILCD midpoint method were used in the impact assessment (LCIA).
Results and discussion
The aluminum bowl was carefully designed in order to allow its use during the cooking stage of the poultry product in the oven and to reduce the cooking time (40 min instead of 50 min needed when using a conventional bowl) at 200 °C: cooking time reduction allows electric energy savings equal to 0.21 kWh (1.38 kWh instead of 1.59 kWh). Electric energy savings become of primary importance to reduce overall emissions, in particular CO2 eq emissions, especially in those countries such as Italy and Germany where there is a predominance of fossil fuels in the electric energy country mix.
Conclusions
Over the entire life cycle of the two alternatives considered (taking into account production, transport, cooking, and end-of-life), cooking stage has the most impact; so, the specific design of the packaging bowl/tray can allow significant lowering of the overall CO2 eq emissions. In addition, when designing an aluminum-based packaging, the content of the secondary material can be significantly increased in order to reach higher sustainability during the production stage.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bengtsson J, Seddon J (2013) Cradle to retailer or quick service restaurant gate life cycle assessment of chicken products in Australia. J Clean Prod 41:291–300
Colwill JA, Wright EI, Rahimifard S (2012) A holistic approach to design support for bio-polymer based packaging. J Polym Environm 20(4):1112–1123
COREPLA (2011) Rapporto di sostenibilità 2011 (Sustainability report 2011). COREPLA, Milan
de Vries M, de Boer IJM (2010) Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: a review of life cycle assessments. Livestock Science 128(1–3):1–11
Frischknecht R (2010) LCI modelling approaches applied on recycling of materials in view of environmental sustainability, risk perception and eco-efficiency. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(7):666–671
González-García S, Castanheira ÉG, Dias AC, Arroja L (2013) Environmental life cycle assessment of a dairy product: the yoghurt. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(4):796–811
ISO 14040:2006 Environmental Management: Life Cycle Assessment Principles and Framework; International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, 2006
ISO 14044:2006 Environmental Management: Life Cycle Assessment Requirements and Guidelines; International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, 2006
ISO 14067:2012 Carbon Footprint of Products: Requirements and Guidelines for Quantification and Communication; International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, 2012
ISO TR 14049:2012 Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Illustrative examples on how to apply ISO 14044 to goal and scope definition and inventory analysis; International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, 2012
ISPRA (2009) Rapporto rifiuti urbani 2009 (Urban waste management report 2009). ISPRA, Italy
JRC (2012a) ILCD handbook. Recommendations for life cycle impact assessment in the European context. JRC, Brussels
JRC (2012b) Technical notes. Characterisation factors of the ILCD recommended life cycle impact assessment methods. Database and supporting information. JRC, Brussels
Laurent A, Olsen SI, Hauschild MZ (2012) Limitations of carbon footprint as indicator of environmental sustainability. Environ Sci Tech 46(7):4100–4108
Leonardi G, Villani MG, Longoni V, Tarantini V, Bottani GP, Scarano D, Pollidori R, Leonardi G (2011) Il laboratorio ENEA sugli elettrodomestici del freddo e forni elettrici. Parte I: caratteristiche e potenzialità di prova. Parte II: caratteristiche, prime prove e potenzialità del laboratorio FIRELAB. www.enea.it. Accessed 15 November 2012
Levi M, Cortesi S, Vezzoli C, Salvia G (2011) A comparative life cycle assessment of disposable and reusable packaging for the distribution of Italian fruit and vegetables. Packag Technol Sci 24(7):387–400
Meneses M, Pasqualino J, Castells F (2012) Environmental assessment of the milk life cycle: the effect of packaging selection and the variability of milk production data. J Environ Manag 107:76–83
PAS 2050:2011 Specification for the Assessment of the Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Goods and Services; BSI: 2011
Röös E, Sundberg C, Tidåker P, Strid I, Hansson P-A (2013) Can carbon footprint serve as an indicator of the environmental impact of meat production? Ecol Indic 24:573–581
Suwanmanee U, Varabuntoonvit V, Chaiwutthinan P, Tajan M, Mungcharoen T, Leejarkpai T (2013) Life cycle assessment of single use thermoform boxes made from polystyrene (PS), polylactic acid, (PLA), and PLA/starch: cradle to consumer gate. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(2):401–417
Tan RBH, Khoo HH (2005) An LCA study of a primary aluminum supply chain. J Clean Prod 13(6):607–618
Verge XPC, Dyer JA, Desjardins RL, Worth D (2009) Long-term trends in greenhouse gas emissions from the Canadian poultry industry. J Appl Poultry Res 18(2):210–222
WBCSD and WRI (2009) Product life cycle accounting and reporting standard. Review Draft for Stakeholder Advisory Group. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative. November 2009
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Responsible editor: Hans-Jürgen Garvens
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zampori, L., Dotelli, G. Design of a sustainable packaging in the food sector by applying LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19, 206–217 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0618-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0618-9